Featured Articles

Not All Jews!

Many Jews become fearful or enraged when anyone criticizes even one single Jew. From a collectivist viewpoint, many Jews see this as a possible attack on all Jews and mobilize to resist it. Laurent Guyenot in his book From Yahwey to Zion explains the ancient roots of this collective behavior:

When a Jew is a victim, the Jewish people as a whole is victimized. … Jewishness is in some sense a latent sentiment capable of being activated by the slightest alarm.

Any aggression against a Jew awakens in him, and among the other members of his community, the trauma of the holocaust. Any anti-Semite, Judeophobic or simply Judeo-critical speech brings to mind the fear of ‘the darkest hours’ in history. Any injustice against a Jew is a little Auschwitz. Every Jew killed is a potential genocide; whoever kills a Jew kills the Jewish people.

This is a slippery slope argument with a vengeance.

So often, the one single Jew who is criticized claims victimhood to the evil of ‘anti-Semitism’, trying to rally collective Jewish appeal on his side. A good example was Leo Frank in the rape and murder of thirteen-year-old victim Mary Phagan in Atlanta in 1913. Frank claimed ‘anti-Semitism’ as the reason he was accused, and so enormous was the outpouring of Jewish support from around the nation that the equivalent of millions of dollars poured into his legal defense from wealthy Jews. So vigorous was the collective Jewish defense of this ultimately convicted (and executed by lynching) child rapist and murderer that it saw the founding of the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL went on to defend many other Jewish criminals including notorious Jewish mobsters and to counter-defame their critics. It would be a wonder if any other racial or religious group did anything but denounce and disown such a convicted criminal as Frank.

Another example was the ‘most infamous and hated (Jewish) Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky. He owned and operated a media empire that promoted government officials including President Yeltsin, worked various schemes to acquire enormous wealth, and got himself on the state Security Council while also claiming Israeli citizenship. When Putin came to the presidency in the late 90s—partly with support from Berezovsky—he confronted the oligarch with evidence of fraud and corruption, and Berezovsky was forced to sell his TV station and flee the country. Putin brought pressure against at least five other Jewish oligarchs, and although there were cries of “anti-Semitism,” most of the Russian people were delighted. Putin defrayed the accusations by promoting another Jewish sect, Chabad Lubavitch, ostensibly using it to soothe concerns of anti-Semitism. Berezovsky’s and the Jewish oligarchs’ appeal of anti-Semitism failed to generate much Jewish support, since “In Russia, everyone is aware of the Jewish identity of these men, and the acts of the Jewish oligarchs themselves have done quite a bit to increase anti-Jewish feelings there. The oligarchs themselves recognize this, as do many Russian Jews, who blame the oligarchs for giving Jews a bad name’. It certainly failed to deter the new Russian President Putin. ‘Some Jews in Russia view this [Putin’s crackdown] as a good thing, … and believe this will reduce anti-Jewish feelings in Russian society.”

So not all Jews rally to protect Jewish criminals, and some even openly denounce them. Whether this is purely in self-interest, to deflect ‘anti-Semitism’ from relatively innocent Jews, or genuine moral appeals, it remains a fact that Jews do not always act collectively.

It was most likely self-interest that compelled German Jews in 1933 to issue statements to the world, most direcled to the ‘International Jews’, declaring that they did not approve of the international Jewish boycott of National Socialist German goods. German Jews had decent prospects in the new National Socialist economic revival that was coming so long as they behaved, and they did not want International Jews inciting resentment and hate against them. The main instigator of the boycott in America was the Jew Samuel Untermeyer, and the holy economic Jewish war against Germany was announced in the London Daily Express newspaper on March 24, 1933. On that same day the National Socialist party had won the greater than two thirds majority (82.44%) vote of the German Parliament to pass the Law of Plenary Powers (Enabling Act) that gave the party full leadership of the country.

(It turns out the International Jews were deliberately pursuing a strategy of inciting ‘anti-Semitism’ against Germany’s Jews in order to defame Germany on the world stage, of which the boycott was only one tactic among others such as assassination of National Socialist officials, publishing of books calling for German racial extermination and cedeing of the country to neighboring states, and others, a topic for another essay.)

Could genuine moral concerns have been a reason many Jews around the world did not favor the creation of the Israeli state (see esp. Jewish Criticism of Zionism), and prior efforts to prepare for it? It certainly appears to be one reason. Some Jews felt that because Palestine already had large Arab, Muslim and Christian populations, the incursion of more Jews would cause conflict. While this could bring harm to Jewish newcomers, some Jews felt it would also harm the local established peoples, and this they criticized on moral grounds, notwithstanding the appeal of ‘the Promised Land’ for the ‘Chosen people’, and the slogan ‘A land without a people, for a people without land’ concocted by Ultra-Zionist Jew Israel Zangwill, who also created the ‘Melting Pot’ theory for the US. The other reasons appear to be mainly self-interest, mainly concern that diaspora Jews would be charged with disloyalty, and religious belief among True Torah Jews that only the Jewish Messiah could lead the ‘chosen people’ back to their ‘promised land’.

Jewish self-interest likely prevented their power elite from promoting the holocaust in America until 1967. This delay was motivated by caution on the part of  Jews not wanting to risk pressuring the American public and WASP power structure with a grand campaign of Jewish victimhood and Goyish guilt. The organized Jewish community felt more confident of its power in America after Israel’s victory in the Six Day War, and began the campaign to promote the holocaust earnest throughout the country at the same time America took over from Britain and France in supplying Israel’s security. While this example may not technically qualify as one of Not All Jews!—the strategy was simply delayed—it bears mentioning as a demonstration of hesitancy within the Jews’ own power cabal.

An excellent example of Not All Jews! involved the participation of about 150,000 at least half-Jews (mischling) in the National Socialist armies fighting Communism, including dozens of officers and some fully Jewish generals. Chancellor Hitler himself personally reviewed thousands of cases and signed exemptions to the Nuremberg Laws that allowed partial Jews  to remain in or join the Wehrmacht. Bryan Mark Riggs’ Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers calls the National Socialists ‘obsessed … with racial policy’, but it just as readily shows a willingness to be flexible, as mischlings themselves were. Riggs closes his introduction with the summation that his ‘study shows just how flawed, dishonest, corrupt, bankrupt and tragic were the racial theories and policies of Hitler and the Nazis’, but again it could just as easily show they were far more flexible in their racial views than even the current ongoing war propaganda imposes. Combined with Hitler’s concept of the ‘Noble Jew’, which he applied to his parents’ Jewish physician, it is likely at least some of these Jewish soldiers enthusiastically fought for Germany and the Third Reich.

A contemporary example is present-day Breaking the Silence, former Israeli Defense Force members who expose the atrocities they and other IDF soldiers committed against Palestinians.

I will leave out such groups as Jewish Voice for Peace, and Noam Chomsky and his followers, unsure at this time if they are little more than controlled opposition. It remains to be seen if the Jews joining the Alternative for Germany Party in its counter-Islamic efforts are sincere, or attempting controlled oppositon and/or internal subversion.

But yes, to be fair: Not All Jews!

The second part of this essay will focus on individual Jews who exemplify not just refusal to participate in Jewish evil and corruption, but actively defy it.
The best of these must be Benjamin Freedman. He converted from Judaism to Catholicism, prior to which he had a career of high-level power, acting as the liason between the Senate Finance Committee (Chair, Henry Morgenthau Sr. [Jewish]) and the Secretary of the Treasury during the Wilson Administration, attending both the Treaty of Versailles and Nuremberg Trials, and associating with other high-level people and events. Freedman spent the last part of his long life expending his substantial fortune from private enterprise in trying to expose the world-conquering Jewish Cabal whose schemes he had become aware of in his career in the halls of power. His iconic speech at the Willard Hotel in 1961, detailing the manipulations of this Judeo-Masonic Cabal, has become a classic reference for those today who understand this primarily Jewish Supremacist world control agenda.

Gilad Atzmon is another former Jew, a former Isaeli citizen who once served in the IDF, and later renounced his Jewishness. He claims he did not feel right benefitting from Jewish ‘chosenness’ and in-group privilege, and could not condone his participation in collective Jewish immorality, particularly with regard to Israel. Atzman openly denounces the hypocrisies, depravity and power lust corruption of the Jewish state of Israel and the international Jewish people generally because of their power on behalf of Israel. His analysis of Jewish group behavior comes from one who knows by experience, and like Freedman, his message is one of warning.

Paul Eisen is a ‘self-identifying Jew’ who appears to be vigorously exposing and denouncing Jewish power. He has been characterized as a ‘self-hating Jew’ for such writings as Speaking the Truth to Jews, Jewish Power and My Life as a Holocaust Denier, and other writing and speaking on The Jewish Question, including his association with Deir Yassin Remembered. For this, especially ‘holocaust denial’, Eisen has lost friendships, professional colleagues, board positions, and speaking events, suffered public defamation, and endured the hard feelings of his own family members.

Most likely the foremost Jew presenting legitimate ‘anti-Semitism’ today is Ron Unz. He says he ‘grew up in a Yiddish speaking household’, and has gone on to become a successful millionaire tech entrepreneur. He is the editor/publisher of the Unz Review, an online journal that has surpassed the iconic Nation magazine in popularity, due in no small part to the writing of Unz himself in his “American Pravda” series. These long essays explore the Jewish Question in depth, identifying some (Not All!) Jews involved in the events of 911, the JFK assassination, the Leo Frank case, and many others. These are surely inquiries Not All Jews!, but for some reason Unz has escaped the harsh consequences others suffer, and he continues to expose the Jewish Cabal. He says this is because they do not want to draw more attention to his writings by confronting him, but one wonders.

Brother Nathaniel is another former Jew who converted to Christian Orthodoxy on moral grounds. Like Freedman and Atzmon, he brings a warning from one who was once on the inside. The huge volumes of knowledge and opinion on his Real Jew News speaks for itself.

Here we must exclude such Jews as Harold Rosenthal, who while as assistant to Senator Jacob Javitz of NY exposed Jewish power, bragging about it to journalist Walter White without approval; he soon died under mysterious circumstances. Also, contemporary critic of certain Israeli Jews Max Blumenthal may be omitted as potentially controlled opposition, denouncing Israel and Zionism but not addressing the world-wide Jewish Cabal.

Even—perhaps especially—National Socialist Germany was Not All Jews! Adolf Hitler’s own personal chauffeur and body guard was Emile Maurice, a part Jew who fought for right on the side of National Socialism against Communism. Maurice was one of the earliest National Socialist members who fought at the forefront of tavern brawls and street fights against Communists, to ensure Hitler and other National Socialist leaders were able to address the gatherings they organized. Maurice went on to found and serve in the SS and held various positions as a National Socialist official. Maurice debunks the myth that Hitler hated all Jews and systematically sought their extermination. In fact, Hitler spoke on record of ‘the Noble Jew’ (his family’s physician Eduard_Bloch). Other National Socialist leaders including Heinrich Himmler appealed to Hitler to replace Maurice as chauffer and body guard with a full Aryan, but Hitler refused. He designated Maurice an ‘honorary Aryan’. Some accounts claim Maurice was only 1/8 Jewish from a paternal grandfather, and thus not considered Jewish under the Nuremberg Laws of the day, making this a mild example but for Maurice’s close personal connection to the Fuhrer.

While National Socialist Germans had legitimate reasons to hate Jews in general (Not All!), they allowed many at least half-Jews or Germans-married-to-Jews to become officers in the Wehrmacht. Major Robert Borchardt, who was half-Jewish, received the Knights Cross for his fighting against the Soviets. Near the end of his life in 1983 he is reported to have said ‘Many German Jews and half-Jews who fought in the First World War and even in the Second World War believed that they should honour their fatherland by serving in the military.’ Erhard Milch, also half-Jewish, achieved the rank of Field Marshall in the Luftewaffe. Other high-ranking National Socialist military men were half-Jewish; seventy-seven in all were identified by the German government. This is most often framed as Jews desperate to escape persecution by showing loyalty, but we must consider that at least some Jews thought of Germany as a beloved fatherland and loved their Fuhrer—and hated Communism—as much as most Germans.

Some of these Jews or former Jews cannot be said to be acting in self-interest, since they have been defamed, harrassed and attacked by other Jews and many Gentiles. Such ‘Noble Jews’ are reflexively denounced as ‘self-hating Jews’ by other Jews; they are ostracized from the otherwise tight Jewish community.
They find a new home among welcoming Gentiles who discover they love ‘self-hating Jews’ above all. The growing counter-semitic movement world-wide would do well to welcome increasing numbers of  Jews who expose and denounce the designs of the organized Jewish community. It would be ideal if more of the world’s Jews should come forward to denounce and counter its power. It would likely be a game-changer.

Because Not All Jews!

(Disclaimer: This essay should in no way be understood to promote ‘Noble Jews’ who expose and denounce the Jewish Supremacist Cabal as better in any way than Gentiles who do the same.)

U.K.’s Repulsive Reality: Reflections on Leftist Witch-Hunting and the Andrew Sabisky Affair

“Ah, the rare happiness of times when you can think and speak as you please!” So said the great Roman historian Tacitus and two thousand years later his words still ring true. Just ask the crime-thinker Andrew Sabisky, who has resigned as an adviser to the British government after what the Guardian described as “fierce criticism across [the] political spectrum.”

Facts vs fantasies

In fact, Sabisky was criticized only by leftists and their cuckservative allies, but the Guardian has always preferred fantasy to reality and will always misrepresent reality when it can. That’s why it was so horrified by Sabisky’s ideas: “In one post from 2014, he suggested that politicians should pay attention to ‘very real racial differences in intelligence’ when designing the immigration system, and another from that year suggested black people on average have lower IQs than white people.” Sabisky also supported eugenics and other attempts to improve the intelligence, health and behaviour of the human race. As Steve Sailer commented, the Black-White IQ gap is “likely the single most well-confirmed fact in the history of the social sciences.” What causes the gap and how to fix it (zero success after 50 years and huge amounts of money) are other matters, but if Britain had paid attention to the gap when “designing the immigration system,” we would have been spared a whole heap of misery.

The consequences of Third-World immigration: startling rape statistics in Denmark

That is, Britain wouldn’t have allowed mass immigration by Blacks and other groups with low average IQs. And so we would have avoided the vastly increased murder, rape, corruption and welfare dependency that inevitably result from such immigration. We would also have avoided the endless rancour and recrimination of anti-racism, which incessantly criticizes Whites for the failures of these low-IQ non-Whites and seeks to destroy traditional White freedoms like free speech, free enquiry and free association. The Andrew Sabisky affair proved once again that non-Whites from “across the political spectrum” will unite against White interests. The Black Labour politician David Lammy said that Sabisky’s views were “dangerous claptrap,” while the Black Conservative politician Kwasi Kwarteng said that they were “racist, offensive and objectionable,” and “totally unacceptable.”

Repulsive and obnoxious

Lammy and Kwarteng were not interested in whether Sabisky was speaking the truth, but in whether what he said was good for Blacks such as themselves. It wasn’t, so they wanted Sabisky thrown out of government. Elsewhere, the Guardian approvingly reported that “several Tory politicians from black and minority ethnic backgrounds … made representations to No 10 about how the row of Sabisky’s appointment was damaging for the party’s relations with the black community.” But Britain has a “black community” only because of mass immigration. And like the Republicans in America, the Tories never win a majority of non-White votes, no matter how much they pander and fawn.

Libertarians for state power! Open borders → crime and terrorism → police state

None of Sabisky’s critics made any attempt to rebut the truth of what he said. They simply held it up as self-evidently wicked and worthy of exemplary punishment. You expect that from open leftists like David Lammy, but the supposedly libertarian Brendan O’Neill revealed his true leftist psychology when he condemned Sabisky’s “outright repulsive views ([Sabisky] thinks blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites)” and said that it was right to throw Sabisky out for his “obnoxious views.” Myself I’ve never understood how statements about reality can be “repulsive” or “obnoxious.” All that should matter is whether they conform to reality – that is, whether they’re right or wrong (or somewhere in-between).

“Don’t debate — defenestrate!”

I think that Sabisky’s ideas are right and accurately reflect reality. If they’re “repulsive,” that’s because reality is repulsive. But the left doesn’t care about the accuracy of Sabisky’s ideas, because the left is interested in power, not in truth. The left’s settled policy in these matters is not to debate but to defenestrate. It has been destroying the careers and livelihoods of stale pale male crime-thinkers like James Watson, Jason Richwine and Noah Carl for decades. And the defenestration of Andrew Sabisky might seem like yet another victory for the left. But you can find good news in the story, all the same. First of all, it’s clear that Boris Johnson’s new Conservative government did not want Sabisky to go. He was appointed as an adviser by the very interesting Dominic Cummings, whom I discussed at the Occidental Observer last year:

[Dominic Cummings] is not a typical Western bureaucrat or official, trained in the slippery evasions of law or the nebulous abstractions of the humanities. Instead, he recognizes the vital importance of mathematics and science in the analysis of reality and the enhancement of what he calls “performance.” As his blog lays out in great detail, he wants to draw inspiration for better governance from hard sciences like physics and great technological feats like the Moon landings. And Cummings will now be “advising” Boris Johnson at No. 10 itself. His advice will not be conventional, because Cummings despises and disdains the Civil Service and official government bureaucracy.

He’s quite right to despise and disdain them. And he’s provided hard evidence of his own greater competence and abilities. Cummings was, in the view of many on the Left, the “evil genius” behind the successful campaign for Brexit. As he’s written at his blog: “But the fact that Cameron, Heywood (the most powerful civil servant) et al did not understand many basic features of how the world works is why I and a few others gambled on the referendum — we knew that the systemic dysfunction of our institutions and the influence of grotesque incompetents provided an opportunity for extreme leverage.”

One very “basic feature” of “how the world works” is of course human genetics and its influence on cognition, psychology and “performance.” Does Cummings understand that feature? Well, he seems very careful to avoid the topic of racial and sexual differences in his public statements, but he is a good friend of the similarly interesting Chinese physicist Steve Hsu, who is not only a race realist but an actual and unabashed eugenicist. Cummings may be a eugenicist too, but he is certainly not a White nationalist. And he must have been certified fully kosher to become Johnson’s advisor. Nevertheless, his appointment is a very interesting development.

At the very least, we can hope that he will be a fox among the chickens of the Civil Service and government bureaucracy. And once ideas like his are loose in the body politic, who knows what may follow? (A Government of Grovelling Goys, The Occidental Observer, 2nd August 2019)

We now know some of what followed. Cummings called for “misfits and weirdos” to join him at the heart of government and Andrew Sabisky answered the call. Cummings must have been aware of Sabisky’s “outright repulsive views,” because Sabisky has hardly kept them secret and was posting “obnoxious” comments at Cummings’ own blog as far back as 2014. My conclusion? Cummings didn’t merely tolerate Sabisky’s crime-think but actually shares it. That is, Cummings himself recognizes the importance of genetics, the promise of eugenics, and the insanity of importing and subsidizing low-IQ populations from the Third World.

Self-serving moralism and hot air

Like all sensible people, Cummings and Sabisky are not leftists or libertarians, but realitarians. They base their ideas on repulsive reality, not on self-serving fantasies. And Sabisky has proven his competence and intelligence in a truly scientific way: by accurately predicting the future based on his observation and analysis of the past and present. He was hired by Cummings because he had already been successful “as a forecaster on defence and other policy areas.” How many of Sabisky’s self-righteous critics have been successful as “forecasters” of reality? None at all, from what I can see. David Lammy fills the typical role assigned to non-Whites in modern Western politics and culture. Like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the United States, he’s a self-promoting moralizer who endlessly criticizes Whites for the failures of non-Whites. And like the supposed libertarian Brendan O’Neill, Lammy emits hot air, not solid predictions by which the accuracy of his ideas can be tested against repulsive reality.

Where Marxist fantasies lead: the horrible reality of famine and mass-murder

But I’ll criticize Sabisky myself for one thing: his naïve behaviour. He made it far too easy for leftists and cuckservatives to track his “outright repulsive views.” It was not wise of him to post at HBD Chick’s blog and the Unz Review under his own name, for example. As the SJW anti-racist Joe Mulhall commented at the Guardian: “Looking at the evidence, it starts to appear that Sabisky may not just hold unacceptable and abhorrent views in isolation but that he may actually be a neo-reactionary or alt-right believer. The idea that someone from these movements managed to become an adviser to Downing Street, if only briefly, is genuinely shocking and further evidence of how once marginal alt-right ideas have crept towards the mainstream.” Mulhall may be shocked, but crime-thinkers should be pleased. And I don’t think Mulhall wants to admit that Cummings must share Sabisky’s views on race and genetics.

BoJo didn’t cuck!

Indeed, it’s likely that many or even most of those now working with Cummings share those views and have been reading crime-think from the Unz Review, Steve Sailer and HBD Chick (and perhaps even the Occidental Observer). Cummings’ fellow crime-thinkers undoubtedly include the part-Jewish prime minister Boris Johnson, who has often been excoriated by the left for his racism, sexism and homophobia. But Cummings’ crime-thinkers obviously don’t include the fully Jewish transport minister Grant Shapps, who said that Sabisky’s words “[are] not my views and those are not the views of the government.” Unexpectedly but refreshingly, a spokesman for Boris Johnson responded by saying that “Shapps was speaking only for himself when he made that statement.”

The spokesman also “refused to say whether the prime minister thinks black people have lower IQs on average, or agrees with eugenics.” In short, BoJo didn’t cuck! He wanted to support Cummings and keep Sabisky as an adviser. And although Sabisky himself has departed from government, his “outright repulsive views” have not. The “evil genius” Dominic Cummings has the same views and will continue to act on them. That’s good news for everyone who believes in repulsive reality and supports the interests of Whites.

Jewish Crypsis in American Buddhism

“From my conversations with many of these Buddhist leaders, they have spoken openly about how their commitments to social justice are shaped by their Jewish upbringings.”
Emily Sigalow, American JewBu: Jews, Buddhists, and Religious Change, 2019.

As mentioned in a 2017 review of The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (2010) by Boston College’s Robert Aleksander Maryks, I am especially fascinated by aspects of Jewish group behavior that involve crypsis, a phenomenon that is often facilitated by a combination of deception and self-deception on the part of Jews. To date, the most forthright and convincing theoretical framework for understanding cryptic forms of Judaism is found in Kevin MacDonald’s groundbreaking Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. A substantial portion of the fourth chapter of the text (1998/2004: 121–132) is devoted to ‘Reactive Racism in the Period of the Iberian Inquisitions.’ Here MacDonald puts forth the view that the blood purity struggles of the Spanish Inquisition during the 15th and 16th centuries should be seen as “an authoritarian, collectivist, and exclusionary movement that resulted from resource and reproductive competition with Jews, and particularly crypto-Jews posing as Christians.” The historical context lies predominantly in the forced conversion of Jews in Spain in 1391, after which these ‘New Christians’ or conversos assumed (or indeed retained) a dominance in the areas of law, finance, diplomacy, public administration, and a wide range of economic activities. MacDonald argues that despite superficial religious conversions, the New Christians “must be considered a historical Jewish group” that acted in such a way as to continue the advance of its ethnic interests. An integral aspect of this was that Wealthy New Christians purchased and endowed ecclesiastical benefices for their children, with the result that many prelates were of Jewish descent.” Much of MacDonald’s theoretical framework is borne out in Maryks’s text, which convincingly demonstrates that ethnically Jewish involvement in the early Society of Jesus followed the same pattern of ethnic nepotism and religious insincerity.

Jewish crypsis in Christianity never really ceased, and the story of Jewish involvement in Vatican II, and even the contemporary activities of even minor figures like Jewish Church of England minister Giles Fraser, has deservedly been the source of much discussion in our circles. For the last couple of years, however, I’ve been intrigued by the idea that multiculturalism would present Jews with a proliferation of identities through which the cryptic pursuit of Jewish interests could be pursued, and non-Christian religious identities, other than Judaism itself, are no exception. Then, beginning with my chance discovery of a series of “anti-racist” “Whiteness seminars” offered by a series of American Buddhist organizations, and especially my investigation of the background of Buddhists for Racial Justice (BRJ), I began to unravel precisely what I had previously only theorized — a massive Jewish presence in a non-Christian religion which had been adapted to serve Jewish interests via crypsis. My investigations would providentially coincide with the November 2019 publication, by Princeton University Press, of Emily Sigalow’s American JewBu: Jews, Buddhists, and Religious Change. The remarkable findings of Sigalow’s text, together with some of my own observations, are presented in the following essay.

The Jew in the Lotus 

If I told you I’d been reading the teachings of Ram Dass, Puma Chodron, Krishna Das, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Surya Das, Zen Master Bon Seong, Thubten Chodron, and Zen Master Wu Kwang, it would probably bring to mind images of bald Tibetans, bearded Hindus, and inscrutable East Asians. Your mind would drift to exotic destinations, and dimly lit temples, far from the hustle and bustle of the American city. Such is the magic of names, and changing one’s name really can be a form of intellectual and social sleight of hand. Just ask the real individuals behind these names — Richard Alpert, Deirdre Blomfield-Brown, Jeffrey Kagel, Jeffrey Block, Jeffrey Miller, Jeff Kitzes, Cheryl Greene, and Richard Shrobe — urban leftist Jews who reinvented themselves as the founders and leading sages of American Buddhism. These figures are just part of a story that began when, in Chicago in 1893, Charles T. Strauss, a Jewish hat maker, became the first non-Asian person in the United States to convert to Buddhism. Today, it is conservatively estimated that around 30 percent of non-Asian Buddhists in America are ethnically Jewish, and many of these are in leadership positions over the remaining 70%, composed mainly of Americans of European descent.[1]

Despite a small number of early converts like Strauss, the Jewish movement into Buddhism took on significance for the first time in the late 1950s, when it gained popularity in countercultural leftism. The influx began some time around the advent of the Beats, where one of the pioneering figures was the (non-Jewish) poet Gary Snyder. Snyder, whose later writings on nature I greatly admire, had worked a series of jobs in forestry and had a deep passion for ecology and the environment, factors that drew him to some of the Far East’s traditional attitudes toward nature, especially those of Zen Buddhism. It was Snyder who introduced Zen Buddhism to Jack Kerouac (who would later immortalize the encounter in his 1958 novel The Dharma Bums) and to Allen Ginsberg. Snyder’s Zen Buddhism was spartan, intellectual, and accompanied by a conviction that man needed to return to nature, facets that Kerouac and Ginsberg found intolerable. Both Kerouac and Ginsberg, however, spun off in different directions, finding forms of Buddhism they found more amenable to their personality types. For the degenerate homosexual Ginsberg, he found what he was looking for in Chögyam Trungpa, an alcoholic and sexually licentious Tibetan monk whose doctrine of “Crazy Wisdom” promoted “flamboyant disregard for conventional behavior.” This style of Buddhism, later laced with LSD culture, would later proliferate in the leftist counterculture.

By the 1960s, strands of Buddhism perceived as permissive, or at least morally non-judgmental, were becoming increasingly popular on the countercultural Left, where the disruption of conventional behavior was the established modus operandi. Jews, disproportionately represented in this area of socio-political life, began to drift to Buddhism in significant numbers. The reasons for this drift have been debated in scholarship and media for decades (e.g. see here, here, and here). The most prominent of suggested reasons is that these Jewish converts are dissatisfied or unfulfilled with the spiritual aspects of Judaism but are resolutely hostile towards, or suspicious of, Christianity, which is seen by many Jews as the fons et origo of anti-Semitism. Sigalow, for example, quotes one young female American “JewBu” as saying, “Christianity in particular just gives me the heebie-jeebies.”[2] Another, in his late 60s, told Sigalow:

It’s hard for me to sit in a Buddhist meditation group in a Unitarian Universalist church. … Even though I appreciate it, and its philosophy is that all religions are fundamentally at some level the same, the word ‘church’ has been contaminated for me [from my Jewish upbringing].[3]

There’s a grain of truth in such interpretations. As will be demonstrated below, many of these Jews clearly, on some level, find the religious forms of Judaism insufficient, even if they obviously prize their Jewishness in other ways. There’s also a lot of truth in the idea that Jews are likely to be extremely averse to conversion to Christianity, a stance derived primarily from very anti-Christian self-understandings in Judaism which posit Christianity as pathological and negatively obsessed with Jews. It really goes without saying that whereas all religions look negatively on apostasy, Jewish to Christian conversion ranks as especially noxious among Jews, with simple atheism likely to be held in much higher regard within the group. But these are really only “push” factors that don’t really explore the pull of Buddhism. Here I posit the lack of doctrine and dogma in certain strands of Buddhism, and a lack of pressure to express certain beliefs, a fact which has enabled Jews to superficially adopt an entirely new religious and cultural identity without compromising ethnic relationships or even some of the fundamental principles of Judaism. Allen Ginsberg, for example, was not the last individual to describe himself as “both a Jew and a Buddhist.”[4] Crucially, Buddhism in 1950s and 1960s America was something very new; it could be steered, shaped, and directed in its infancy. Jews thus had a chance to fashion a new religion in their image. Indeed, one of the most remarkable aspects of Sigalow’s work is not just that it demonstrates how little Jews adapted to Buddhism, but how much they adapted it to their own identity.

Jewish Buddhist Activism

Sigalow remarks that not only have Jews “emerged as prominent teachers and leaders,”[5] in Zen, Insight Meditation, and Tibetan Buddhism, but that they have uniquely imbued American Buddhism with an “activist ethic”[6] that it has lacked elsewhere and at any time previous. Writing in The Tablet, Michelle Goldberg concedes that American Buddhism is a essentially Jewish creation that is “unlike anything seen in traditional Buddhism.” It’s interesting that non-Jewish contemporary Buddhists have noted, and argued against, a strong tendency towards “social justice” in American Buddhism. Brad Warner, a White Buddhist who trained in a Zen monastery in Japan, has observed in a number of blogs and YouTube videos (e.g. see here, here, and here) that whereas traditional Buddhism has insisted that there is no hierarchy in suffering (all people suffer, all races suffer, and none more so than others), modern American Buddhism is obsessed with liberal-left politics, social justice activism, and a negative preoccupation with White demography. Warner has also pointed out that while Buddhism encourages a focus on the present, and a letting go of the past, modern American Buddhism is bogged down in discussions of putative historical racial injustices that include trips to Auschwitz posturing as Zen meditation retreats to reflect on how we “should seek and welcome diversity.” Predictably, Warner has since been accused of being a Trump supporter (which he most definitely is not) and a neo-Nazi (which he most definitely is not).

The reason for the discrepancy between Warner’s Buddhism and that of most American Buddhists is that Warner was trained by spartan Japanese Buddhists and not, as is the case for most American Buddhists, by Jewish intellectual activists. Sigalow writes that many of the ethnically Jewish leaders and teachers of American Buddhism possessed “deep relationships with Judaism” and “brought ideas and concepts drawn from Judaism into Buddhism.”[7] Jews have been able to direct American Buddhism because they accumulated rapidly in its ranks during its first popularization in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and Jewish ethnic cliques were subsequently behind the foundation of most of the organizational structure of American Buddhism thereafter. Founded in 1975, the Insight Meditation Society, supposedly rooted in the Theravada tradition of Buddhism, is one of the largest independent centers for the study of Buddhism in America. Its founders were Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzberg, and Joseph Goldstein. Shambhala Publications, the foremost publishing house for American Buddhism, was founded by Samuel Bercholz.

“Buddhist” Gurus: Sharon Salzberg and Joseph Goldstein

Another highly influential group, the Zen Community of New York, now known as Zen Peacemakers, was established in 1980 by Bernard Glassman. Glassman’s group is the most prominent proponent of Auschwitz tours for American Buddhists, and his website description of these ventures is quite something:

We’ll once again feel the razor wire fences of imprisonment, gather in barracks that once squeezed humans tighter than cattle, and pray by those deep rectangles in the ground that killed people because they were different on account of religion, country, ethnicity, and sexual preference. Or just because. Because we continue to have scapegoats, someone to blame, rather than accept the complex responsibility of living fully as human beings. … In Poland it is illegal to talk of Polish complicity in the murder of Jews in Poland. Democracy and diversity have become dirty words. Sectarianism and bigotry have reared their ugly heads, stoking fear of immigrants, refugees, poor families, and ethnic and religious minorities. … Today we witness the intersectionality of discrimination — individuals and groups are marginalized for being of a certain color, and of certain sexual orientation, and of certain class, and of certain religion, in complex and overlapping ways … What does diversity mean to you? Are we all in this together, or are a privileged few inside and everyone else out? Who is included, and who is excluded? Now more than ever it is crucial to bear witness to the results of xenophobia and bigotry. The 2020 retreat at Auschwitz-Birkenau will not only bear witness to the killing and torture of Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and Polish intellectuals and journalists, to a time when a non-Aryan life was deemed a worthless life. … We seek and welcome this diversity especially now, … How do we build bridges and alliances instead of walls?

If this description strikes you as utterly devoid of Buddhist content—stripped bare of even the slightest relationship to the austere, reflective Zen of the Far East and something that could have been written by an ADL operative, you aren’t alone. But this is, after all, the new “American Buddhism,” and it has an overwhelmingly Hebrew flavor. After all, California’s Spirit Rock Meditation Center was also founded by Jack Kornfield, with the assistance of fellow “Buddhist” Sylvia Boorstein. Today its key teaching staff include leading American “Buddhists” like Howard Cohn, Will Kabat-Zinn, Wes Nisker, and Donald Rothberg. Most, if not all, of the country’s largest Zen Buddhist and meditation centers, including Empty Gate Zen Center (Jeff Kitzes), the Nashville Mindfulness Center (Skip Ewing), Chogye International Zen Center (Richard Shrobe), and San Francisco Zen Center (David Zimmerman), are directed by Jews, while Jews continue to dominate most mass-appeal aspects of modern American Buddhism, especially its literary scene. All of this is a mere reflection of the Jewish takeover of early American Buddhism in the 1960s, a massive presence that prompted Chogyam Trungpa, Ginsberg’s guru, to remark in astonishment at the number of Jews among his students that they would start the “oy vey school of Buddhism.”

Analyzing the “JewBu” phenomenon from the perspective of crypsis, it is extremely interesting that there is a high level of ethnic cohesion and cooperation among Jewish converts to Buddhism. The vast majority of these individuals worked alongside each other to create the infrastructure of American Buddhism, and also married Jews. Many continued to espouse Jewish, or quasi-Jewish religious identities. Glassman, for example, employed “rabbinical tales in his dharma teachings,” as well as leading his “Buddhist retreats” to Auschwitz.[8] Gary Laderman, meanwhile, has commented that Sylvia Boorstein “describes herself both as a faithful Jew and a practicing Buddhist. … Her books have focussed on synthesising Buddhism, Judaism, and psychotherapy.”[9] Sigalow remarks that Goldstein and Kornfield were “exceedingly creative and innovative in their teachings,”[10] which is elsewhere explained as meaning that they ultimately “reconfigured Buddhism”[11] to suit their own pre-existing cultural, religious, and political tastes. It’s been argued that Jews engaged in a “doctrinal reorganization”[12] of Buddhism which essentially involved removing elements that made Buddhism particularistic, monarchical, patriarchal, or spiritually troubling to Judaism. For example, Sigalow comments that Jewish teachers have basically “muted” any “dogmatic, doctrinal, and mythological elements of Buddhism,” and cycles of reincarnation are “virtually absent in the teachings of Jewish Buddhist teachers.” Rather than embracing Buddhism, these Jews have in fact “largely abandoned” key doctrines seen as “integral” to Tibetan Buddhism.[13]

Of equal interest to the aspects removed from Buddhism by Jewish converts are those elements that Jewish converts have added to it. Sigalow points out that Jews have imbued Buddhism with “psychological and psychotherapeutic qualities” that were previously unheard of, while Michelle Goldberg claims that Jews have been behind the “psychologization of Buddhism.” This has manifested in an unusual emphasis in JewBu teachings on “tolerance” or “loving-kindness.”[14] Sigalow adds that the most profound Jewish influence was that

beginning in the 1960s, a new movement within Buddhism emerged that focussed on applying Buddhist insights to social issues confronting contemporary society. … From my conversations with many of these Buddhist leaders, they have spoken openly about how their commitments to social justice are shaped by their Jewish upbringings.[15] 

These latter changes are particularly interesting because what we essentially witness is the redefinition of a religion that Jews co-opted, and the promotion by Jewish Buddhist conversos of a new quasi-Buddhism to White converts—Sigalow points out that Jews are almost entirely absent from Asian Buddhist communities—that involves intensive self-reflection, critical pseudo-analysis of Whiteness, very high levels of tolerance, pluralism, and pseudo-religious commands to fight for “racial justice.” Since Jews pioneered psychoanalysis and Whiteness Studies, and remain key proponents of racial pluralism, it’s difficult to avoid the possibility that Jewish involvement in Buddhism is at least in part a vehicle for the pursuit of the same Jewish interests but in more cryptic form. Buddhists for Racial Justice, for example, now known as North American Buddhist Alliance, is just one of the mechanisms for such activism in the United States, one of its key figures
being a bald female-to-male transexual called Joshua Goldberg.

The promotion of a kind of psycho-therapeutic form of Neo-Buddhism among Whites could also be seen as an extension of the efforts of psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School to treat putative cultural pathologies among Whites by addressing largely imagined repressions and anxieties. It’s been claimed by The Tablet that Jews effectively created the modern “mindfulness” industry by stripping Buddhism of its mythological elements and radically increasing those elements of Buddhism that involve the cultivation of emotional passivity among adherents. In fact, American “JewBu” Buddhism is notable for its encouragement of tolerance and pluralism, as well as the neglect of one’s own individual interests. This runs counter to the facts of historical Asian Buddhism, which has seen authoritarian and war-like forms, and also to contemporary examples like the situation in Myanmar, where Buddhist monks have demonstrated their awareness of individual and group interests by leading violent attacks on Muslims and their property.

Literal Jewish Gurus

As “Buddhist” teachers and gurus, Jews can of course obtain very high levels of White convert obedience and commitment while obscuring the precise nature of their activities. Changes of name, common in conversions to Buddhism, further obscure links between the American “Buddhist” hierarchy, making Jewish ethnic nepotism, and Jewish dominance of the movement’s origins and leadership, less obvious. For example, a promotion by a Wu Kwang of a Surya Das will raise fewer eyebrows than a Joseph Goldstein promotion of a Joshua Goldberg. The end result is that Jews have been able to very rapidly obtain a large number of priest-like spiritual roles over Whites without any of the awkward hurdles in Christianity. Unlike the historical situation in the Catholic Church, Jews have been able to saturate leadership roles in Buddhism very quickly, without suspicions, without demanding studies and examinations of theology, and without making religious declarations that run counter to Judaism. Due to the decentralized nature of Buddhism and its reliance on a system of teaching “lineages” (spiritual authority is often passed down via “direct face-to-face Dharma transmission” between master and student) all Jews had to do was insert themselves into these lineages (under the right masters) at the right time (the “oy vey school” of the 1950s and 1960s) and they could direct the future of American Buddhism thereafter, both by establishing its infrastructure, by selecting its future co-ethnic gurus via “Dharma transmission” and by expelling dissenters from their anti-White activist agenda. Thus we see many stories like that of contemporary “Zen Master” Zoketsu Norman Fischer, who describes himself as a “Dharma heir” in the lineage of Sojun Mel Weitsman.

The White Buddhist convert scene has also been a rather putrid soil for cult-like behaviors and sexual misconduct and abuse. Even before Jews swamped early Western Buddhism, huge numbers of the early Asian gurus were involved in the sexual grooming of their White followers (e.g. see here, here, here, and here). Homosexuals have likewise used the White Buddhist convert scene for depraved purposes. Confirming a credo of mine that it’s never a good idea to permit non-Whites, gays, and Jews to possess any position of authority, one of the most recent scandals has involved “American Buddhist” Noah Levine. Levine is the son of Stephen Levine, a Jewish associate of Ram Dass (Jewish psychologist Richard Alpert), and part of the same coterie as Kornfield, Goldstein, and Salzberg. Noah Levine was taught “Buddhism” by Kornfield, and subsequently went on to found the Against the Stream Meditation Center in Venice, California, as a distinct “American Buddhist lineage.” Against the Stream, which describes itself as having been founded “on antisexist and antiracist principles” became known for its use of punk imagery, and it has played a significant role in the promotion of “woke” culture within American Buddhism via its
courses on Whiteness, White privilege, and racism.

Unfortunately for Levine, and despite his anti-sexism classes, allegations emerged in late 2019 that Levine had been sexually assaulting female followers, prompting the organization to expel him. Other Buddhist organizations have distanced themselves from him and revoked his teaching certifications. Enraged, Levine let the cat out of the bag when he complained that his father and colleagues “Kornfield, Ram Dass, Joseph Goldstein, Sharon Salzberg” were essentially frauds anyway and that “these guys had no authorization to teach, they just gave it to themselves.” Or to put it another way, they simply invented their own religion based on the promotion of passivity and the celebration of diversity, and called it Buddhism.


As someone profoundly influenced by the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, I have a natural sympathy for authentic Buddhism and its ancient teachings on suffering. It has also been remarked by many scholars that Zen Buddhism has very close parallels in the philosophies of both Nietzsche and Heidegger, with the result that there is definitely something in Buddhism that is accessible, and even useful, to the European mind and soul. That being said, the increasing drift of White Americans into Buddhism (see here, here, and here) should be viewed with alarm given the above discussion. American Buddhism is, to a very significant extent, an artificial contrivance of Jewish intellectuals designed to pacify Whites, promote multiculturalism, and otherwise advance political goals oppositional to White interests—literally the same goals of the activist Jewish community in America generally.

[1] Sigalow, American JewBu: Jews, Buddhists, and Religious Change, 1.

[2] Ibid., 159.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 59.

[5] Ibid., 57.

[6] Ibid., 58.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 76.

[9] G. Laderman, Religion and American Cultures: Tradition, Diversity, and Popular Expression: 2nd Edition (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO), 57.

[10] Sigalow, 76.

[11] Ibid., 78.

[12] Ibid., 69.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., 70-71.

[15] Ibid., 73 & 76.

Recent Advances in the Study of Human Differences: Implications of the Genomic Revolution

Editor’s note: This is the final installment of Devlin’s review of Murray’s Human Diversity.

Human Diversity concludes with a consideration of the genomic revolution currently unfolding.

Older Americans learned about genetics in Mendelian terms where each gene coded for some trait which was normally either dominant or recessive. The genome as a whole was thought of as analogous to a large jigsaw puzzle. Once the entire genome was mapped, we could figure out which traits was encoded by which gene and the result would be a full understanding of inheritance.

Even long before completion of the human genome project in 2003, researchers began suspecting that things were going to get a bit more complicated this, both because some traits are under the control of more than one gene (polygenesis) and because some genes are associated with more than one trait (pleiotropy).

As recently as 1999, one of the pioneers of genome-wide analysis made news for suggesting autism might be under the control of fifteen or more genetic loci. That was thought to be an exceptionally high number at the time; today it is considered “quaintly low.” (275) Since genome-wide analysis became possible, it has been discovered that, e.g., human height is caused by the combined effects of around 100,000 different loci. Indeed, statistical correlations with height can be measured for around 62 percent of all gene loci, although most of these probably have no causal effect. The word omnigenic has begun to appear in the literature. In short, Gregor Mendel got lucky with those pea plants of his back in the nineteenth century: he stumbled upon a monogenetic trait which simplified his interpretive task greatly.

As for pleiotropy, a 2018 study looked at correlations between genetic loci affecting general cognitive function and 52 health related traits. Statistically significant correlations were measured for no fewer than 36 of these, many of which had no obvious relations to cognitive functioning. Such results could soon become typical.

The notion of a straightforward correlation between traits and the genetic loci which “encode” them has, accordingly, been displaced by that of polygenetic scores. To measure a person’s polygenetic score for a given trait, one must first know which single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are statistically correlated with that trait. Then one performs a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on the person. For each SNP, every human being inherits two alleles, one from each parent. Depending on which alleles the subject has, this yields a genotype score of 0, 1, or 2 for that SNP. These numbers are then added up for all statistically significant SNPs as weighted by their statistical significance. This gives researchers an estimate of how likely the individual is to exhibit the trait.

Polygenetic scores are useful to researchers because the causality runs in only one direction: personality, abilities and social behavior cannot cause polygenetic scores. Furthermore, they can predict from birth, even for late-onset phenotypes, and they have 100 percent test-retest reliability. They can also predict differences between family members, which twin studies cannot do. Polygenetic scores are normally distributed, meaning it will eventually be possible to measure means and standard deviations as we do with IQ and other normally distributed traits.

Medical research is the first domain where polygenetic scores have begun proving useful:

In 2010, two technical articles in the US National Library of Medicine contained the phrase “polygenetic score” or “polygenetic risk score” in the title or abstract. By 2015, that number was up to 47. In 2018, it was 171. (293)

But the effects of the new technique are unlikely to be limited to medicine. For example, behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin expects polygenetic scores to revolutionize psychology by allowing professionals to estimate the genetic risk patients have for disorders before they develop, for creating more precise treatments, and for shifting the focus from treatment to prevention.

Not everyone is equally impressed by the advance represented by polygenetic scores. The chief objection is that statistical correlation is not causation. A trait can be heritable in the statistical sense without having any genetic mechanism. For example:

Marital status is highly heritable—72 percent in one large-sample twin study. The heritability of divorce specifically has been estimated at around 50 percent. Because divorce is heritable, we can be sure that a GWAS will identify a large number of SNPs that are significantly associated with divorce. Suppose, for example, that some of the SNPs are related to the personality trait “irritability.” Isn’t that a plausible causal link to divorce? But we can’t be sure even of that. Pervasive pleiotropy means the SNPs related to irritability are also related to a number of other traits that are just as plausibly a cause of divorce—or, conversely, might be related to resistance to divorce. Omnigenetics and pleiotropy work to create a causal map so sprawling and indeterminate that it is reasonable to conclude GWAS has taught us nothing new about the causes of divorce and finding more SNPs won’t teach us anything important. (284)

In other words, as one critic of Plomin’s claims has written: “Marriage and divorce are heritable, but they do not have a specific genetic etiology.” (284)

More generally, the critics note that

all complex human traits result from a combination of causes. If these causes interact, it is impossible to assign quantitative values to the fraction of a trait due to each, just as we cannot say how much of the area of a rectangle is due, separately, to each of its two dimensions. (285)

These critics are not merely expressing caution

about how many complications remain unresolved. They aren’t just saying that it’s early days yet and that we shouldn’t get ahead of the data. They are saying that when it comes to complex traits, the GWA [genome wide association] enterprise is futile. (285)

Moreover, “complex traits” like divorce could be influenced by completely different genetically influenced traits in different people. Irritability likely makes one more likely to be divorced, but so does a propensity for philandering, and genes influenced one such trait may not be linked to the other. This reality has resulted in evolutionary psychologists emphasizing that the traits that should be studied are those for which there is evidence that they are directly under natural selection—traits like intelligence and the various personality systems (here, p. 264).

Insofar as science is about establishing causality, such skepticism about complex traits may well be correct. But, as Murray points out, a ‘soft’ science such as sociology “has never been about causal pathways and perhaps never will be. It’s about explaining enough variance to make useful probabilistic statements.” (286) For that purpose, polygenetic scores are going to be useful and thus, predicts Murray, will inevitably be used:

By the end of the 2020s, it will be widely accepted that quantitative studies of social behavior that don’t use polygenetic scores usually aren’t worth reading. (286) When large databases with genomic information are easily available, it will be akin to professional malpractice to conduct an analysis of social behavior that does not include genomic information. Few quantitative social scientists are going to write such analyses because they won’t get past peer review. The question “Why didn’t you take genetics into account?” will be universal and will have no good answer. (287)

Genome-wide complex trait analysis, or GCTA, is another new technique with uses and limitations similar to those of polygenetic scoring. These techniques are the principle reason for Murray’s confidence that the days of enforced Lysenkoist orthodoxy are now numbered. He expects that genomic analysis will revolutionize physical anthropology, economics, political science and social policy as well as psychology and sociology, in part by permitting far more rigorous studies of environmental effects.

However, such optimism may be misplaced given the pronounced leftist proclivities of much social science, particularly in highly politicized areas like sociology. Imagine the difficulty of publishing a study in a mainstream academic journal in which race is a variable and polygenetic scores are used for variables like criminality or intelligence.

*   *   *

In his final chapter, Murray reflects on the reasons behind the ferocity of our intellectual elite’s devotion to social constructivist dogma. This is not a matter which can be decided by means of data and controlled experiments, of course; and by the same token, the empirical arguments of the previous chapters hold good regardless of what one thinks of Murray’s remarks on this subject.

The premise concealed behind all the furious insistence on egalitarian dogma is a “conflation of intellectual ability and the professions it enables with human worth.” The elites are smart, and smart people are strongly attached to their own intelligence and the things it enables them to do. Many of them imagine, therefore, that telling another group of people that nature gave them a lower average IQ is tantamount to a council of despair, as though this would make their lives less worth living. But this is not the way ordinary working people see matters.

As Murray notes, these natural differences were formerly discussed within the moral vocabulary of Christianity. God calls different men to different stations for reasons of his own—reasons that are inscrutable to human understanding; and it is rebellion against the Divine Will not to accept such providential arrangements. But our human value and eternal destiny are something else entirely: the king has no advantage over the peasant on the Day of Judgment. It behooves even the king, therefore, to retain a sense of humility and dependence on God’s unearned grace.

Today’s elite, having lost its Christian moorings, has lost any way of dealing with natural inequality. They seem to believe that high-IQ professionals are really “better” than working people in some fundamental sense, rather than simply more advantageously placed. In order for this situation not to outrage their moral sense, they must think of high status as something equally available to all at birth. Such a conception implies that they owe their own exalted abilities and status to personal effort, while their attitude “toward ordinary Americans is too often covertly condescending if they are people of color and openly disparaging if they are white.” (316) Under their leadership, what Murray considers the four chief wellsprings of human flourishing—family, community, vocation, and faith—have largely dried up for the rest of society.

But the evidence presented in Human Diversity indicates that our cognitive and social elites are merely the winners of a genetic lottery. They stand in far greater need of humility concerning their own accomplishments than “disadvantaged minorities” do of social programs. As Murray notes, within living memory “it was considered un-American to be a snob, to look down on other Americans, and to think you were better than anyone else.” Perhaps the most important consequence of the impending collapse of social constructivism will be the removal of an essential prop from the unbearable self-conceit of the Western elite. Then we can turn our attention to repairing some of the damage done on their watch to family, community, vocation and faith.

The Elephant in the Living Room: The Communist Origins of Modern Antifa

The following text is the translation of two speeches given by General  Nick Z. Glasnovic in January 2020 in the Parliament of Croatia. Transl. by T. Sunic. General Glasnovic is an MP in the Croatian Parliament

Starting from the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, all the way to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988, communist regimes all over the world killed tens of millions of people. Those mass killings were carried out in the name of equality, democracy and tolerance. Most of those killed were victims of “self-genocide” given that they were mostly victims of their own countrymen. Such criminal communist insanity had been planned to the last detail. Wherever the communist cabal had come into power, i.e., from Mongolia to the Adriatic coast, the most vital part of the population had to be beheaded first.

In an effort to destroy the Christian tradition, communists had to remove the Church and the clergy. During the early communist revolutionary post-World War II fervor, religious leaders were often burned alive, or buried alive, or crucified alive. The Bolsheviks, in 1918, buried alive the Russian Christian Orthodox  Bishop Andronicus. In 1937, the  Russian theologian, mathematician and inventor, Pavel Florensky, after being subjected to torture, was executed by the Communist authorities. He was one of nameless 750,000 victims of the NKVD (Soviet secret police). He was shot in the neck at the height of the communist repression, later to be known as Stalin’s “Great Purge.” In addition to killing millions of people of various religious denominations (mostly Christians), more than 110,000 clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church were executed. Even the Red Army needed to be partially beheaded. Stalin executed several Soviet marshals, generals and tens of thousands of lower rank officers during the 1936–1937 purges. In 1931, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, which could accommodate up to 10,000 believers, was blown up by Stalin’s thugs. Books by foreign authors were burned or banned. In 1940, after Stalin had dismembered the Baltic states, literature in vernacular languages in those countries ​​was also banned.

Brainwashing was an integral part of all communist regimes, with psychiatric experiments on prisoners becoming a daily routine. Politically incorrect thinkers were confined to psychiatric wards where they were drugged, tortured and questioned. The Soviet NKVD and, later on, their smaller post-World War II copycat East European outlets shortly after they were established began to experiment with nerve poison, a method used later to “neutralize” political opponents, both at home and abroad. Prisoners were killed by mustard gas, ricin and digitoxin. After years of imprisonment, the Archbishop of the Ukrainian Church Theodore George Romzha was killed by a curare injection.

Nor did communism spare scientists, especially those who had obtained some prominence in the fields of genetics and forensics. The biologist Nikolai Koltsov, a Russian pioneer of modern genetics, became a victim of communist poisoning in 1940. On the same day, his wife committed suicide. Many Soviet pseudo-scientists, including a famed hoaxer Trofim Lysenko, who had rejected Mendel’s laws of heredity, succeeded in setting back for decades all efforts in genetic research in Russia.  Some modalities of the Lysenko’s quackery can be observed today among many Antifa and LGTB outlets who claim that gender and race are a matter of free choice and are not influenced by heredity.

In the early days of the communist experiment, the method of weaponizing food against their own people was also widespread, as was observed on the massive scale during the great famine in Ukraine in the 1930s. The mandatory communist slogan in the early 1950s, enforced all over communized Eastern Europe, went something like this:  “We shall grow wheat from the heavens so that hungry America and England can see it.” In order to suppress the revolt in May 1950 in the Cazin region of what is today a small slice of northwestern  Bosnia, the Yugoslav communist strongman Josip B. Tito, sent units of the Yugoslav National Army to quell the rebellion of starved peasants.

The Memory Hole

Victims of the Communist mass terror don’t seem to be a favored theme of Hollywood movies, docudrama, and TV series. These horrors are presented as little more than a minor footnote in history textbooks.  What do graduate students in the West know about Vasily Blokhin, the NKVD executive responsible for the execution of more than 7,000 Polish officers in the spring of 1940? What do Western students  know about  the fate of Ljudevit Jurak (1881–1945) and Eduard Miloslavic (1884–1952), two Croatian forensic experts who studied the mass graves at Katyn and Vinnitsa, hired in 1943 by the German Wehrmacht to examine the bodies of Poles massacred in 1940 by the Soviet commissars?   What do Chinese students, or for that matter Western students, know today about the “Great leap forward” and the “Cultural Revolution” (1966–1976) of Chairman Mao Zedong which nearly destroyed 3,000 years of Chinese history? The dead hand of Marxism and Leninism still extends over the European continent, albeit under the new label of “antifascism.”  Former communist affiliates and their latter-day antifa progeny have now rebaptized themselves into Social Democrats and Liberals. Former Yugoslav Titoists and their descendants in Croatia haven’t disappeared; they operate now under different party names, using more digestible parliamentary paraphernalia such as the “HNS” (Croatian People’s Party) the “IDS” (Istria’s Democratic Assembly), and the “HSS” ( Croatian Peasant Party).  The much vaunted Council of Europe resolution 1481, adopted in 2006 and condemning communist crimes, remains a dead letter, good enough to assuage the guilty consciences of Brussels bureaucrats.

The communist regimes left not only human, economic and ecological devastation. Communist anthropology has distorted the mental makeup of generations to come. Communism had given birth to a species deprived of any moral values, of any sense of personal responsibility, and of any sense of striving for common good. The Russian writer Alexander Zinoviev called this species an “honest liar.” In November 2019, the Belgrade historian Srdjan Cvetkovic visited Zagreb. At a scientific meeting, sponsored by the Croatian Institute of History he confirmed the long-held public secret that 56,000 Serbs had been killed from 1944 to 1946 in Serbia by the victorious Yugoslav Communists. More than 20% of those killed were under the age of 18. The conference, as was to be expected, was ignored by the mainstream media in Croatia, thus reminding us that the authorities in Croatia and her EU watchdog, are the only ones who decide on the political narrative in the mainstream media. What do children learn now in Croatia about the history of the communist crimes against the Croatian people? Nor do they know anything about the largest ethnic cleansing campaign in European history and the destruction of the German minority in the former Yugoslavia during and after World War II. One must not forget that lies and deception were imprinted in the Bolshevik genetic code. Henceforth their offspring consider themselves as the only genuine interpreters of modern history.

The history of Eastern Europe has been mapped out by countless “Naked Islands,” big or small Gulag archipelagos, foibes, and unexplored mass graves. Almost daily the Croat media report on the newly found mass graves  dating back to 1945–46. To this day the ruling class in the West has shown a total lack of personal and legal conscience towards victims of communism. If we give up the search for the truth, we also sign our moral capitulation and we decide to participate in the erasure of our collective memory. It looks, however, that we will have to put up for a much longer time with the communist elephants in our living rooms.

Man’s Estrangement from Nature as Considered by the Transcendentalists and the Modernists

The Transcendentalists were immensely influential in the United States as the mid-nineteenth century approached, not least of which was because of their attempts to explore the essence of nature and to consider its value and its interaction with man and vice versa. As the nineteenth century wore on in America, there was a decided shift in cultural values and even composition of the country from agrarian to increasing urbanization and industrialization and intellectually, as Kevin MacDonald has recounted, the influence of the Darwinian school began to eclipse that of this older tradition. Today the Transcendentalists are rarely-evoked and little remembered.

Following the War of 1812, the United States became acutely aware of the need for an improved transport system and greater economic independence, resulting in a concerted effort to develop manufacturing and to expand domestic trade through increasing the accessibility of the nation’s abundant natural resources. By the 1820s, the transition was underway, with factory cities springing up particularly in the Northeast and technology improving at a rapid rate. The United States witnessed unprecedented development and growth. There was a flip side to all of this, however, which served as the impetus for the Transcendentalists to expound on the value of nature. The increased emphasis in American culture on industrial development, with little thought to the adverse effects it may have on the environment or man himself, is the primary issue that Transcendentalists were responding to when they turned their criticism and attentions to the value and influence of nature, once so central to the American experience.

The Transcendentalists were not so naïve as to think of nature as merely a pastoral retreat, nor did they think that it should never be touched by human hands. Ralph Waldo Emerson recognized that nature should be appreciated for its beauty, but that it certainly had its uses as a commodity (also evident in Henry David Thoreau’s actions in Walden). It is telling that Thoreau knew categorically the flora and fauna around him, and sought to understand every dimension of the world writ small around him, from the minute geographic details to the very core of life itself. The Transcendentalists acknowledged the need for and uses of industry; in fact, Thoreau was fascinated by the machines of the Industrial Revolution, trains in particular. He recognized their uses. But was not willing to be held in thrall to them. The Transcendentalists cautioned people against being blinded by the constant push to industrialize at the expense of their own enlightenment or of nature. Nature has many uses; to engage in a singularly exploitative relationship with nature would be to destroy it, and, indeed, to miss the point entirely. Emerson urged people to turn to nature to find God and a feeling of one-ness with the universe:

In the woods, we return to reason and faith. … I become a transparent eye-ball. I am nothing. I see all. The currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God…In the wilderness, I find something more dear and connate than in streets or villages.[1]

Emerson recognized that there was much more that man could gain through a relationship with nature beyond material gain; if man could commune with nature, he could better himself. Nature can be a commodity, but it is not limited to simply that which can be extracted from it, particularly without regard to its stewardship. Its power is something to be revered and respected, something the modern “glampers” don’t seem understand. It does not conform to man’s expectations and desires, much as we may try to bend it to our will. Nature constitutes the understood and the unknown. It is the soul—that is, all that is outside of man, as well as something that is inside, shared with the rest of the universe. To commune with nature is to tap into this elemental, spiritual force that could lead to truly “knowing thyself.” As Emerson discussed in 1842:

The Transcendentalist adopts the whole connection of spiritual doctrine. He believes in miracle, in the perpetual openness of the human mind to new influx of light and power; he believes in inspiration, and in ecstasy. He wishes that the spiritual principle should be suffered to demonstrate itself to the end, in all possible applications to the state of man, without the admission of anything unspiritual; that is, anything positive, dogmatic, personal. Thus, the spiritual measure of inspiration is the depth of the thought, and never, who said it? And so he resists all attempts to palm other rules and measures on the spirit than its own.[2]

The Transcendentalists were realistic in their interpretations of the uses of nature, and not only acknowledged but supported them within reason, but they also urged people to look to nature for more than just something to be conquered. Nature was to be appreciated as a spiritual force as well as something that should not be plundered and destroyed wholesale as it is crucial to the survival of man. This was quite radical, as species were being slaughtered wholesale across the country, forests were being clear-cut, and the atmosphere and lands were being poisoned by unregulated output by industry.

The irony of the Industrial Revolution was that as the means of mass communication and infrastructure increased, communication with the self and with nature decreased. In a way this has never really resolved itself, but the Transcendentalists saw the roots of this blooming problem of estrangement and urged mankind not to lose their connection with nature. By seeing themselves as outsiders and nature as something totally other, as separate from humanity, is to make an egregious error. Men like Thoreau and Emerson recognized this and their writings have served as the basis for much of what would become conservationist thought. In many ways, John Muir was the personification or even intensification of these Transcendentalists; they saw that there was much to be gained from a relationship with nature, and to view it merely as something that men could conquer and bend to their will was a grave mistake. Anne Woodlief writes:

The major premise of transcendental eco-wisdom is that connection with nature is essential for a person’s intellectual, aesthetic, and moral health and growth. One must see and experience nature intimately, whether defined as the ‘not-me’ or as landscape, to participate in the unity of Spirit underlying its visible processes. This connectedness is the basis of the self-reliance which determines how a person lives with integrity in nature and society.[3]

Thus, man’s relationship not only with the harmony of nature and the ecosystem, but his relationship with himself and his relationships with others could be improved through communing with nature.

Emerson acknowledges that it is difficult for everyone to attain personal enrichment through nature, but that it can be achieved as long as we try to attune ourselves to it. Indeed, it is clear that unlike Thoreau, Emerson himself spent very little time in nature, but through contemplation he was able to theorize on nature’s power. Anyone else could do the same, and it teaches us humility as well as fosters empathy and connectedness. For Emerson:

Under the general name of Commodity, I rank all those advantages which our senses owe to nature. This, of course, is a benefit which is temporary and mediate, not ultimate, like its service to the soul. Yet although low, it is perfect in its kind, and is the only use of nature which all men apprehend. The misery of man appears like childish petulance, when we explore the steady and prodigal provision that has been made for his support and delight on this green ball which floats him through the heavens.[4]

As more and more Americans left their farms and went to cities to participate in the rapid industrializing process, they became estranged from the agrarian spaces that Americans had previously inhabited, as well as doubly removed from the “blank spaces”—the wilderness—that lay beyond. The sense of living off the land was replaced by an increased consumerism and drive to not just master the span of the continent but to subdue it and crisscross it with railways.

Unfortunately today things are much worse, and the commodity aspect of nature is the only popular aspect ever discussed; even saving the planet from carbon emissions (!) is framed in purely economic and transactional terms. Emerson’s ideas on nature were broad and thus interpretive, while Thoreau wrote and lived conservationism. Although Emerson only obliquely tackled some of these issues, and some never occurred to him at all, his ideas still inspired many of the Transcendentalists as they took their own interpretations from his texts and expounded on them.

Henry Adams’s “The Dynamo and the Virgin,” a chapter in The Education of Henry Adams(1900), frames the tectonic shift in the American experience as a transition from the values of the nineteenth century to the changing views of the twentieth. “Dynamo” is a manifestation of the uniquely American intellectual conflicts and challenges. It reflects the shift into a new paradigm and the modernist idea of searching for spirituality. It discusses the estrangement many Americans were beginning to feel from religion; the search for a maternal figure is another central theme of Adams’s essay, a search imbued with semi-spiritual undertones, perhaps also connected with an estrangement from Mother Nature.

Wallace Stevens’s “Anecdote of the Jar” (1919) is important because it reflects the changing relationship between man and nature. This issue remains as pertinent as ever. “Anecdote” is very relevant to us today, both because of current events sense as well as illustrating a change in style from the nineteenth century. In this respect it ties in very well with “Dynamo.” Also linking the two works is the notion of just how great art has an impact on us. Interpreted another way, the jar can be looked at as cold and impersonal—an imposition of the corporate and consumerist culture that was about to become so prevalent in the 1920s.

The poem: 

Anecdote of the Jar by Wallace Stevens

I placed a jar in Tennessee,
And round it was, upon a hill.
It made the slovenly wilderness
Surround that hill.

The wilderness rose up to it,
And sprawled around, no longer wild.
The jar was round upon the ground
And tall and of a port in air.

It took dominion everywhere.
The jar was gray and bare.
It did not give of bird or bush,
Like nothing else in Tennessee.

The most striking feature of this jar is that it has no striking feature—it is totally “gray and bare.” It is lifeless.

The packaging and commoditization of art (and its vulgarizing) has also become a major part of popular culture (insofar as one can call it culture), and in a way this poem presages the coming of mass marketing and the omnipresence of homogenous corporatization, reflected in the familiar landscape of interstate highway exit ramps with their predictable assortment of fast-food restaurants and gas stations; it also presents this cold monolith with no defining features other than that it is utterly lifeless and gray. It forces nature to accommodate it, not the other way around, and seems very much like the growing urbanization of the United States. The setting of Tennessee, a generally “wild” place, particularly the eastern half, and its “taming” is quite ominous, and the reader could certainly map socio-political and historical events on to this image.

Southern literature has always had a strong sense of place, an overarching sense that the setting is inextricably intertwined with the very fabric of the stories themselves. There is a pervading feeling that is distinctly Southern, that to remove the sense of place from, say, Stevens’s poem or Flannery O’Connor’s “Good Country People” would cause it to become as monochrome and dead as the jar. The setting is the context; there is an almost palpable sense of the history of the American South, a feeling that it cannot, and should not, be escaped. The role of the setting is absolutely critical to Southern literature; a sense of place is very strong, a curious amalgam of the particular and the universal, much like one encounters in Thoreau’s Walden or The Maine Woods. This is epitomized in William Faulkner’s “Dry September” and Tennessee Williams’s “The Angel in the Alcove.” The very lifeblood of Mississippi and New Orleans, respectively, flows through them.

One of the many great tragedies of the (post-) modern era, beyond the many Orwellian repercussions of the modern surveillance state and the unnatural sardine-tin existence of urbanity, is the demise of regionalism. It is just one more instance of the ersatz meaninglessness wrought by neo-liberalism. The many unique flavors of the United States are being drowned in a uni-cultural onslaught of corporatized multi-culturalism. Corporatized multi-culturalism actually destroys cultures. Its end-stage is that it makes everywhere the exact same. What’s more, the notions of animal rights, conservation, and eco-responsibility are wholly Western concepts, and much like the cherished Bill of Rights and Constitution, most non-Whites do not value environmental preservation the same way the sons and daughters of Europe do. Anyone who’s ever traveled the Third World (or even places like China) can attest to this. Yet another tragedy in the long series of tragedies wrought by the loathsome globalists.

[1] https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/historyofus/web04/features/source/docs/C16.pdf

[2] https://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/emersons-transcendentalist/

[3] https://transcendentalism.tamu.edu/ecotran

[4] https://emersoncentral.com/texts/nature-addresses-lectures/nature2/commodity/

The War on White Australia: Cheap Labor Importation Schemes

I have written extensively about the pivotal role played by Jewish intellectuals and activists as ideological and political handmaidens of the demographic transformation of Australia over the last fifty years (see here, here, here, here and here). In this essay I want to explore another key driver of this transformation: business interests fixated on suppressing wages and boosting profits through the expedient of mass immigration and cheap labor importation schemes.

The White Australia policy (1901–1973) was, while it lasted, a hugely successful attempt to preserve the genetic and cultural legacy of the founding racial stock of the nation. It was also an industrial relations policy designed to prevent the capitalist class from flooding the Australian economy with cheap labor. This was a key part of the original rationale for the policy as articulated by Alfred Deakin, Australia’s first Attorney-General, who argued that:

a white Australia does not by any means just mean the preservation of the complexion of the people of this country. It means the multiplying of homes, so that we may be able to defend every part of our continent; it means the maintenance of conditions of life fit for white men and white women; it means equal laws and opportunities for all; it means protection against underpaid labour of other lands, it means the payment of fair wages. A white Australia means a civilisation whose foundations are built on healthy lives, lived in honest toil, under circumstances which imply no degradation; a white Australia means protection.”[i]  

An analogous view had been expressed as early as 1841 by James Stephen, the head of the British colonial office in London, who warned that large-scale non-White immigration to Australia would inevitably “beat down the wages of poor labouring Europeans … [and] cut off the resource for many of our own distressed people.”[ii] In the four decades before the enactment of the White Australia policy in 1901, some 60,000 South Sea Islanders (called “Kanakas”) were imported and indentured to Queensland sugar plantation owners who built a business model on this ultra-cheap imported labour and who regarded themselves as a “plantocracy” in the manner of the American south. This practice alarmed Australian scholar Charles Pearson who observed in 1893 that: “We know that coloured and white labour cannot exist side by side; we are well aware that China can swamp us with a single year’s surplus of population; and we know that if national existence is sacrificed to the working of a few mines and sugar plantations, it is not the Englishman and Australian alone, but the whole civilized world, that will be the losers.”[iii]

The closing down of this and other cheap labour importation schemes with the enactment of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 hugely benefited White Australian workers. Wages paid by business rose to secure labour. The sugar industry continued to thrive, but without cheap imported labour the plantation model struggled against the family farm model, and the industry came to comprise many smaller-scale enterprises. The White Australia policy was thus a policy of economic protectionism designed to benefit the entire racial group by preventing capitalists from importing cheap labour to undercut the living standards of White Australians. The policy reflected the desire of Australians to build a strong and prosperous society founded upon the principles of racial and cultural homogeneity. Reflecting this view, one commentator noted in 1939 that: “The Australian prides himself on his high standard of living; he wishes to do nothing that will endanger it. Neither does he wish to bring into being a colour problem such as he sees in South Africa.”[iv]

Advertisement for Australian-made furniture from the early twentieth century

Since the Jewish-led overthrow of the White Australia policy in the 1960s and 1970s, Australian policymakers have progressively embraced not only the Jewish diasporic strategic imperatives of increased racial diversity and multiculturalism, but also the cheap labor importation schemes prohibited under the White Australia policy. A dramatic increase in cheap labor importation into Australia took place after 1996 when the “conservative” government of Prime Minister John Howard created the Section 457 Visa for temporary workers—a visa program designed to be uncapped and totally driven by the putative needs of the Australian labor market.

The 457 Visa led to a massive increase in cheap non-White labor brought into the country, including in industries experiencing flat or no growth, such as cooks in the hotels/restaurant industry and shop assistants in the retail sector. One union noted how there was a 53% increase in the number of 457 Visa holders over a period when total employment in relevant industries fell by six per cent. Many businesses used 457 Visas to replace their existing workforces with cheaper migrant workers. Australia’s peak union body, the ACTU, noted how the proliferation of 457 temporary work visas meant that young people and graduates who previously would have been offered an apprenticeship or other entry-level opportunity have been effectively shut out of a number of industries.

Amid growing community anger and a Senate Inquiry into the scheme, the 457 Visa was replaced in 2018 with the Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) Visa, which, while ostensibly including more rigorous labor market testing and salary assessment requirements, has had minimal effect in limiting temporary migrant numbers. There are currently about 2.2 million temporary visa holders in an Australian workforce of 12.9 million—or about 17 per cent of the total (not including illegal workers). This is a massive 54 per cent increase from a decade earlier. Almost a fifth of the nation’s cleaners, store packers, and food and hospitality workers are on temporary migrant visas—at a time when nearly two million Australians are either unemployed or underemployed.

International Student Explosion

In addition to creating the 457 temporary work visa, it was the Howard government that, from the early 2000s, encouraged overseas students to apply for permanent residence after completing their courses in Australia. This was partly in response to lobbying from the universities who sought to promote overseas student enrolments as another revenue source. The inevitable result was an explosion in overseas student enrolments, and by 2017–18 overseas students had become the largest contributor to Australia’s very high level of Net Overseas Migration (NOM) which numbered 271,700 people in 2019. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates, overseas students comprise around 44 per cent of total NOM. Between 2012 and 2017, the share of commencing overseas students of all commencing students in Australian universities grew from 21.8 per cent to 28.9 per cent and to around 40 per cent in Group of Eight (Go8) leading universities. The majority of these students were from China and India.

The head of The Australian Population Research Institute, Dr. Bob Birrell, estimates that around one in five overseas students is granted Permanent Residency each year, noting that “Most of these students had been in Australia for years. They had managed to stay here by transferring from one temporary visa to another before eventually finding a PR pathway, mainly by finding an employer to sponsor them or a resident to sponsor them as a partner.” An overseas student studying for a bachelor’s degree typically extends their stay to pursue a post-graduate qualification and then moves on to a 485 visa to work for up to 18 months. Overseas students (especially those from India) show a high propensity to seek and obtain another temporary visa each year, and an equally high propensity to appeal any decision to deny them an additional visa. This enables them to stay in Australia while their appeal is heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Overseas students are by far the largest contributors to population growth in inner Sydney and Melbourne. As well as contributing to a collapse in academic standards at Australian universities (who have a vested financial interest in setting low English language standards for their courses), their presence in the labor market actively harms Australian workers:

Many thousands of overseas students are being enrolled who do not hold the funds needed to finance their stay in Australia for more than a short period. They have to rely on obtaining employment here. They have created an underclass of workers with little choice but to accept whatever terms employers are prepared to offer. Most of those holding an overseas student visa do not possess professional or trade qualifications accepted in Australia. And, because they hold temporary visas, employers are usually only willing to recruit them on a casual or part-time basis. They enter low-skilled labour markets (notably in hospitality, retail and other service industries). The costs are borne by the many young domestic workers who do not possess post-school qualifications and who are also seeking work in these occupations. These domestic job seekers face ferocious competition from overseas students and other temporary migrants. This has eroded wages and conditions.

While this labor supply abundance persists, employers don’t have to raise wages or invest in labor saving capital equipment. Real incomes have, consequently, stagnated in Australia for a decade and in 2018 the labor productivity growth rate fell to zero. Between 2008 and 2016 Australia’s labor market created an extra 474,000 full time jobs but only 74,000 went to people born in Australia. The bulk (400,000) went to migrants (both permanent and temporary)—the vast majority of whom arrived in the country after 2001. Close to 30 per cent of Australian residents are now born overseas.

The Scale of Recent Australian Immigration

In 2000, the Australian Bureau of Statistics forecast that Australia’s population wouldn’t reach 25.4 million until 2051. As a result of mass immigration and a population growth rate much faster than other developed countries, Australia got there in 2019. Jewish Monash University professor and leading immigration and diversity propagandist, Dr. Andrew Markus, recently enthused: “You have to pinch yourself. In 2006 our population was under 20 million, and now it’s over 25 million. I can’t think of a developed Western country that’s experienced a change of that magnitude.” The Chinese-born population of Australia grew by half to 650,000 in the five years to 2018 (more than eight times faster than the overall population), and by 2023 is on track to surpass the English-born. The Indian-born population grew even faster to 590,000. In 2019 more people from Nepal settled in Australia than from the United Kingdom, mainly due to the high number of students who come here and remain after graduation, and who then use chain migration to bring in their relatives.

Australia’s Nepal-born population is now about 95,000, compared with only 1,410 in 1996. Tara Gaire arrived from Nepal as a student in 2008, and now works as a trainer in the vocational education sector. Living with his family in the northern suburbs, Mr Gaire said he felt very at home in Melbourne’s multicultural environment. “We catch up with community members, we go to the temple, it doesn’t feel like overseas,” he said. … Dr Bob Birrell, from the Australian Population Research Institute, said Nepalese students had created a bridgehead in Australia from which the community grew rapidly. “We have former students who got permanent residency through skilled entry and marrying locals, and then inviting relatives from the homeland to join them,” he said.     

Pro-immigration political commentator George Megalogenis recently noted that demographic trends in the city of Melbourne point “to a future in which Australia is no longer a majority white nation.” Melbourne is the first Australian city in which the largest ethnic community are migrants born in India, followed by those born in China. “Melbourne’s ethnic face, with the Indians first, the Chinese second and the English [born] third, is” he observes, “expected to become the nation’s before the end of the 2020s, as cities and regions increasingly rely on migration for population growth.” Megalogenis, a leftist with a longstanding animus to Anglo Australia, celebrates the fact “history will be made at the core of our identity. Indigenous Australians will outnumber the English-born for the first time since the 1820s. At that point we can stop pretending we are just a white nation.” While this is obviously a change Jewish intellectuals and activists will be cheering, it’s something unlikely to alarm White Australian business leaders devoid of any racial or national feeling.

Scene from Boxing Day sales in Melbourne 2019

Despite growing community unease, successive governments have steadfastly refused to reduce Australia’s high immigration intake due to the pleadings of ethnic lobbies, universities, and a business sector that finds it far easier to recruit cheap migrant workers than train locals. A report by the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia recently advocated totally unrestricted inflows of temporary migrants and the abolition of any labor-market testing for positions filled by migrants. Noting that Net Overseas Migration now accounts for about 60 per cent of Australia’s population growth, David Alexander, writing in The Australian, observes that:

Many of the policy themes of recent years echo those of earlier eras. Labour importing businesses argue that they shouldn’t be expected to pay market rates for labour, and on this basis deem there to be labour shortages that government must assist with. These businesses have increased competitiveness against those that do not use cheaper imported labour, and this is contributing to the structure of industries reverting to a more manorial model. Looking across historical episodes, we can identify the economic principles at work; high differentials between wealthy-country wages and poorer-country wages will always create incentives for some businesses to arbitrage away the difference through labour mobility schemes. And, correspondingly, the pressure for wage convergence with poor countries can be expected to elicit opposition from domestic workers.

Clearly racial and cultural imperatives would, in a sane country, override government support for large-scale cheap labor importation schemes. It is disingenuous to declare labor shortages on the basis that businesses decline to pay the market rate, and it is also unfair to give structural advantage to labor-importing firms over local-employing firms. The Indian government recently cited spurious “labor shortages” in Australia (i.e. the unwillingness of businesses to pay market wage rates) to argue for even greater access for Indian workers to “fill the gaps” in the Australian economy, proposing that Indian health workers, infrastructure specialists and security guards be given enhanced access to the labor market. The Indian population of Australia has, as mentioned, exploded in the last two decades: Melbourne and Sydney have been the destination of choice for more than 60 per cent of the 500,000 Indians and more than 70 per cent of the 500,000 Chinese who have migrated here since 2001. The Australian Chamber of Commerce has welcomed this unprecedented surge in permanent and temporary migration, noting “The biggest reason for the growth in our NOM (net overseas migration) is international students [with the right to work], something to be celebrated.”

Increased Scope for Worker Exploitation

Australia’s extremely high per capita level of immigration, fueled by uncapped temporary work and overseas student visas—where over two million workers in Australia are currently on visas—creates tremendous scope for worker exploitation. In 2015 it was revealed that thousands of workers, generally Indian students on visas, were paid as little as $5 an hour by 7-Eleven and were blackmailed, or threatened with deportation if they spoke up. The company apologized and paid back more than $160 million to thousands of workers in back pay. A long list of companies have since been caught underpaying staff or using fake traineeships to avoid paying workers their entitlements. A recent study found underpayment of wages to temporary workers is rife, with as many as a third being paid less than half the legal minimum wage. The underpayment of workers in the hospitality industry is so widespread as to be standard practice. Most recently, a restaurant fronted by Jewish celebrity chef Heston Blumenthal was found to owe employees at least $4.5 million “in what appears to be the worst case of underpayment yet in the high-end restaurant sector.”

Such practices inevitably have a flow on effect throughout the entire economy where high school and university students are widely underpaid and overworked. Business journalist Adele Ferguson noted how “These companies have come to symbolize what is wrong in a number of sectors of the economy, where underpayment or wage suppression is part and parcel of doing business and vulnerable workers are like lambs to the slaughter in this insidious practice. It isn’t an overstatement to say that worker exploitation is widespread and have become entrenched over time.” A lawyer leading a class action of former employees subjected to such practices observes how employers “have been allowed to build empires and expand their business portfolios on the backs of employees being paid less than their minimum award [legal] entitlements.”

Stagnant Wages in Australia

It is little wonder, in such an environment, that real wages in Australia have stagnated. Wage underpayment fueled by mass immigration (temporary and permanent) has seen Australian wage growth fall off a cliff since 2013 and remain at low levels. Economics professor Roger Wilkins notes over the last decade “the almost complete absence of any growth in household incomes. After tax, the typical Australian household earned $80,600 in 2009. In 2017 the same household earned $80,100. Meanwhile, ultra-low interest rate policies by Australia’s central bank has inflated asset prices, fanning inequality, and supercharged an already high debt burden without much increase in genuine economic activity.” Since 2000 the volume of loans outstanding in Australia—to households, businesses and governments—has soared from $740 billion to 2.9 trillion. The average mortgage on an existing dwelling in New South Wales recently hit an all-time high of $621,500.

Australian politicians are fond of boasting that, during a period of time when other major developed economies experienced several recessions, the Australian economy has experienced almost three decades of uninterrupted economic growth. This disguises the fact that, due to record high immigration, Australia’s annual growth in Gross Domestic Product per capita has, in the last decade, averaged less than one per cent, lower than America, Japan, and even the Eurozone. Per capita incomes have gone backwards during 18 quarters of the past 28 years (including two technical recessions). In per capita terms, both the Victorian and Melbourne economies have gone backwards four times in the past ten years. On that measure, it is the worst performing state and city in Australia—despite being the favored destination of new Chinese and Indian migrants. “The population growth has disguised the fact that Victoria has become a poor state,” notes economist Saul Eslake. “Let me put it this way, economic growth that’s only driven by population growth is not really worth having, as it is not improving people’s living conditions.”

Mass immigration has so transformed the demographics of Melbourne that more than 40 per cent of residents are now migrants. And this is only the start: if current trends continue a city the size of Brisbane will be piled on top of Melbourne in the next two decades. A consequence has been that house prices have risen to among the most expensive in the world as house size and quality have declined. A 2017 survey of 406 cities ranked Sydney the world’s second most expensive (housing costs against inflation) only behind Hong Kong (which it increasingly resembles). Melbourne came in sixth, more expensive that London, Tokyo and New York. Wage stagnation amid soaring house prices has made shelter a luxury, and priced a generation out of the property market. The amenity of local suburbs is declining, congestion is worse, there are fewer parks and “green spaces” and most modern apartment blocks are cheap eyesores. Meanwhile, Australia’s annual intake of around 20,000 mainly African and Middle-Eastern refugees has fueled a surge in violent crime.

Australia’s New Economic Strategy

Population growth fueled by mass immigration and the servicing of it with cheaply-built houses, apartments, and supermarkets has essentially become Australia’s economic strategy. Former Australian Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, pointed out that “Australia digs up and sells raw materials. In the cities the economy is based on building apartment blocks and shopping malls. The idea of Australia as a clever country is a myth, it’s an illusion.”

Unsurprisingly, surveys have found a steep fall in public support for immigration over the last decade. A 2018 survey found that more than 69 per cent of respondents felt the country didn’t need more people. Community concerns about the deleterious effects of mass immigration are not, however, represented by Australia’s political class. At the 2019 federal election, despite some clear differences between the two major political parties in a range of policy areas, they effectively ran a joint ticket on immigration. Economics journalist Judith Sloan notes that immigration is “a no go subject for many in the political class,” who are “in heated agreement in their support for high migrant intakes, both permanent and temporary, and the associated high population growth.”

Conscious of the public’s growing hostility to mass immigration, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a small cut in Australia’s permanent migrant intake (from 190,000 to 160,000) in 2019—while failing to mention the nation’s massive temporary migrant intake wouldn’t be constrained. According to the 2019-20 federal budget, Net Overseas Migration is expected to average 268,600 annually for the next four years—an increase on the 228,700 estimate from the previous budget. A former Department of Immigration bureaucrat notes that “If [Morrison] sticks to that plan [to lower permanent migration to 160,000], then Treasury’s rise in net migration inevitably means a huge surge in long-term temporary migration to more than offset the reduction in permanent migration.” Moreover, the 160,000 permanent immigration figure also does not include the 20,000 people granted permanent residence each year through Australia’s refugee program.

The Labor Party opposition in Australia, like its counterpart in the UK and the Democratic Party in the US, has essentially abandoned any pretense of representing the interests of the White working class. Most of the “creative destruction” that followed the economic globalization of the post-Cold War era has been in jobs lost by blue-collar White men. White manual workers across the West now face fewer jobs and, spurred by mass immigration (both legal and illegal) falling real wages and unaffordable housing. Rather than representing these people (their traditional constituency) by supporting immigration restriction, the Australian Labor Party panders to ethnic communities. In the wake of its shock 2019 election loss, the party is “prioritizing engagement with migrant communities” and will focus on “reviewing legislation from a multicultural perspective.”

Australia’s Plutocratic Elite and Mass Immigration

Noting the reasons for the major parties’ flagrant disregard for wishes of the electorate, Judith Sloan notes that “The lobbying behind immigration is so strong that both parties have concluded the views of ordinary folk can be ignored. These forces include the bureaucracy—check out the Treasury’s reports—big business, property developers, the universities, and various interest groups, some ethnically based.” These business and ethnic groups lobbying for unrelenting waves of mass immigration often overlap. Australia’s largest property developer, the Jewish tycoon Harry Triguboff (known as “high-rise Harry”) is a pro-immigration zealot for ethnic and business reasons. Born to Russian-Jewish parents who fled to China, Triguboff, who came to Australia as a young boy in 1948, pioneered selling apartments to the Chinese, and hopes mass immigration will see Australia’s population soar to 55 million by 2050 and 100 million by the end of the century.

High-rise Harry Triguboff

Fellow Jewish plutocrat, Frank Lowy, is also “an advocate for an ambitious immigration program.” In response to talk of a small cut to the permanent immigration intake in 2018, Lowy, claiming to be “disturbed by the negative tone of the debate over immigration,” protested that “we are moving in the wrong direction. We should bend that curve back upwards. We should be talking about targets, not caps.” Mass immigration proponents like Triguboff, Lowy, and fellow Jewish property tycoon John Gandel, were leading donors to both major political parties in the lead up to the 2019 election. All three, meanwhile, strongly support Israel’s ethnically-restrictive immigration policies, with Lowy recently moving to Israel after retiring from active involvement in his business affairs.

Downward Social Mobility of White Australians

Pivotal to the growing backlash against neo-liberal economics in the West has been the downward social mobility that has resulted from decades of the kind of plutocratic rentier capitalism championed by Triguboff, Lowy, Gandel and other pillars of Australia’s corporate elite. Analysis by a Harvard economist in 2016 found that just half of children born in the 1980s were better off than their parents, compared with 90 per cent of baby boomers. The downward social mobility of younger generations of White Australians is especially acute because of the crushing rise in house prices and the incredible corruption of the banking and financial systems that has accompanied it. Plutocratic rentier capitalism is an economic system where certain players are able to extract a “rent” from everybody else because they have an excess of economic and/or political power.

While these and other business interests are undoubtedly made better off as a result of mass immigration, its negative effects are mainly borne by White working people and taxpayers. Taking just public infrastructure—covering roads, public transport, hospitals, schools, electricity, water and sewage, policing, law and justice, parks and open space and much more—Sustainable Population Australia estimates every extra migrant requires well over $100,000 of infrastructure spending. A failure to make this kind of investment in infrastructure results in growing congestion on roads and public transport. Infrastructure Australia forecast that the annual cost of road congestion will increase from $19 billion in 2016 to $39 billion in 2031. Exacerbating this is the fact two-thirds of migrants settle in the already crowded cities of Sydney and Melbourne—each of whose populations are projected to reach 10 million in the next fifty years. The only way this doubling of the populations of Melbourne and Sydney can be occur so rapidly is by moving to a lot more high-rise living—a fundamental and profoundly negative change to the Australian way of life.

It is little wonder that, when asked, Australians feel their living standards are declining, especially those struggling to squeeze into an overheated housing market. Asked how they felt about the level of change during the past decade, more Australians opted for “concerned,” “overwhelmed,” and “fatigued” than “positive,” “empowered” and “energized,” according to research published late last year. These results reflect growing sentiment throughout the West where growing numbers of White working people are becoming heartily sick of plutocratic rentier capitalism fueled by unrelenting waves of permanent and temporary immigration.

[i] Ian Cook, Liberalism in Australia (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1999), 179.

[ii] Eric Richards, “Migrations: The Career of British White Australia,” In: Australia’s Empire, Ed. Deryck Schreuder & Stuart Ward, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 163-185; 167-168.

[iii] Charles Pearson, National Life and Character: A Forecast, (London: MacMillan & Co., 1893), 16.

[iv] Richards, “Migrations: The Career of British White Australia,” 173.